Talk:Gun Girl

RFD discussion: April–May 2022

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Gun Girl

Kent State Gun Girl

A non-notable young lady who became known in her country for her love of gun. Wikipedia has an entry about her, but WP is quite US-centric. Let’s delete these, for Category:Individuals should contain only individuals who are actually famous. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep — IMO Wiktionary needs to include entries for nicknames of individuals if they don't follow a particular naming formula, and came about in human language out of common discourse rather than being made up by a specific company, for instance as a brand name. I believe this should apply regardless of obscurity, and any name that can be cited with the 3 cites rule should pass.

Currently WT:CFI never says anything explicitly about how we decide which entries on individuals we should keep and which we should delete. The only thing it does say (but that we don't follow nearly to the dot) is that "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia." Well, on the places thing for instance... we don't even follow that whatsoever, so that sentence definitely needs to be amended. And we never even call our pages "articles"; they're "entries".

Back to individuals as entries... CFI needs to have some consistent measurement of how we deal with these, to set some kind of solid precedent. Whether that be "no entries about individuals are allowed on Wiktionary" or "we allow entries on individuals if the said entries follow some particular formula" (which I favor), something needs to be set, so that we can stop having wishy-washy debates about it here. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the idea that any nickname that can be cited three times should be allowed. We should at least have some standards for what people are notable (for example, having a Wikipedia article may be a decent heuristic). If someone decides to make up a silly nickname for their friend or enemy, some random private citizen, and then gets this included in three printed university newspapers, do we really want to be forced to document it here? You could say that the same applies to words, but I believe (and WMF policy implies) that the potential for harm is greater when it comes to living people. 70.172.194.25 22:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Not famous enough for a dictionary IMO. There are thousands of people with memey online nicknames, like that Star Wars light-saber kid etc. etc. The two citations look like mentions anyway. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong keep. WT:CFI doesn't say anything about notability, so the entire premise of this RFD contradicts Wiktionary's policies. As long as a term is attestable, it should be included, no exceptions. It'd be one thing if you proposed deleting everything in Category:Individuals, but targeting specific entries for being "non-notable" would set a troubling precedent. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia, and I'd like to see it stay that way. Binarystep (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete The fact that there are even 2 separate, identical entries for this is incredible. Ok, she had her 15mins of viral-micro-fame in the US. The internet has moved on. We haven't. – Jberkel 01:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The internet also moved on from fidget spinners, yet the entry still persists. Binarystep (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and maybe someone will benefit from it when a 2010s revival comes along :) – Jberkel 15:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Either delete, or mark as a hot word and review in a year's time. — Sgconlaw (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Struck out the hot word suggestion since the terms don’t qualify. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In general I'd be in favour of following WP when it comes to deciding whether to include nicknames of individuals. Their bar is far lower than that of a classic encyclopedic dictionary, but such is life in the Internet age. However, these entries have another problem: all the cites currently given are mentions, so they are at risk of failing RFV as they stand. If we can kill them that way I wouldn't be sad. This, that and the other (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete based on what it is (nickname of a non-notable person, unlikely to be used in any other way), but if kept it should be cited. - TheDaveRoss 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Big Red is a very comparable case. Equinox ◑ 10:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The key difference is that Kaitlin Bennett is a public figure, not unlike Candace Owens or Ben Shapiro. There's an important distinction between a harassing nickname given to a random individual, and a nickname for a somewhat famous political pundit. And although I don't think Big Red is dictionary material (primarily due to the harassment factor), I do think it's a bit questionable to delete pages for being "non-notable" when WT:CFI says nothing to justify that. Binarystep (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

How is this different from "the man who shot JFK" or "the 43rd president of the United States"? It doesn't mean anything on its own- it's a way of getting to nonlinguistic information. In the same way, "2*7-12" refers to the same thing as two, but it isn't a lexical item. It takes more than being used three times to show that it's part of the language and not just an example of language being used to refer to something. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between a nickname (especially one that's capitalized) and a generic, SOP description. Binarystep (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Send to RFV. I don't think this would fall under hot-word status as I've definitely heard and seen it before 2019. AG202 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There’s no need to send terms like this to RFV that aren’t dictionary material. Unfortunately, people (above) are using the CFI, that misses many details of the norms that we actually follow, as an excuse for keeping these entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete as SOP. Unlike, e.g., the King of Pop or the Queen of Soul, any person who gained notoriety for going armed on a college campus could be known as the "[Name of Institution] Gun [Girl/Guy]". bd2412 T 14:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Delete Gun Girl per this reasoning. AG202 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  What about the other nomination? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Undecided on the other one since it's more specific and there's really nothing under CFI that seems to directly bar it. AG202 (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted: no consensus to keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A minor terminological quibble: "no consensus" for an RFD would mean keeping the entry. This looks like there's consensus (at least 9-2) to delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but I said no consensus to keep; am I missing something? Okay, maybe I should be more careful about my wording, anyway. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

An actual consensus for deletion is required for deletion, because consensus is required to change the status quo. Such a consensus exists here. bd2412 T 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)